Can lost energy from inefficiency only be transferred as heat or radiation?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BasketDaN
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Loss
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of energy loss in machines that are not 100% efficient, specifically exploring whether lost energy can only be transferred as heat or radiation. Participants examine the implications of thermodynamics and the potential for energy to be absorbed or converted in various forms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that in any machine that is not 100% efficient, lost energy primarily dissipates into the surroundings as heat or radiation.
  • Others argue that thermodynamic principles prevent the complete recovery of waste heat for work, indicating that some energy is inherently inaccessible.
  • A participant mentions that while capturing waste heat can increase inefficiency, it can still be used for heating purposes in applications like cars and industrial co-generation.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of energy loss due to radiation, providing a formula for calculating radiation loss based on temperature.
  • Some participants highlight that energy can also be absorbed by the working fluid in machines like compressors, suggesting that energy loss is not limited to heat and radiation alone.
  • There is a question raised about whether sound, heat, and infrared are the only forms of energy loss to consider.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that energy loss occurs in the form of heat and radiation, but there is no consensus on whether these are the only forms of energy loss or how effectively energy can be captured or converted. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of thermodynamics and the role of working fluids.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of energy loss and the assumptions regarding the efficiency of different machines. The discussion does not resolve the complexities of energy transfer mechanisms or the conditions under which energy can be effectively captured.

BasketDaN
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
I am just double checking an idea that I've always figured was true, but never really asked someone who knows about. In basically any machine that is not 100% efficient, the only "place" the lost energy (due to the inefficiency) can go is into its surroundings as heat energy, or radiation, correct? If this is so, how easily/effectively can radiation be contained and transferred back into heat energy? How is this done? (I assume just very reflective surfaces surrounding the thing that is emitting radiation)

Thanks.
 
Science news on Phys.org
BasketDaN said:
I am just double checking an idea that I've always figured was true, but never really asked someone who knows about. In basically any machine that is not 100% efficient, the only "place" the lost energy (due to the inefficiency) can go is into its surroundings as heat energy, or radiation, correct? If this is so, how easily/effectively can radiation be contained and transferred back into heat energy? How is this done? (I assume just very reflective surfaces surrounding the thing that is emitting radiation)
If you are talking about heat engines, principles of thermodynamics prevent you from using a portion of the 'waste' heat to do work. So a portion is inherently inaccessible. If you contain or capture it, you just make the process more inefficient. It has to flow to a cooler reservoir in order to get work out of the heat. That is not to say that the heat cannot be used for purposes of heating. This is frequently done for example, in your car, and in industrial co-generation schemes.

AM
 
Andrew Mason said:
If you are talking about heat engines, principles of thermodynamics prevent you from using a portion of the 'waste' heat to do work. So a portion is inherently inaccessible. If you contain or capture it, you just make the process more inefficient. It has to flow to a cooler reservoir in order to get work out of the heat. That is not to say that the heat cannot be used for purposes of heating. This is frequently done for example, in your car, and in industrial co-generation schemes.

AM

Indeed, and that's what I'm referring to. So my initial assumption is true, though?
 
BasketDaN said:
Indeed, and that's what I'm referring to. So my initial assumption is true, though?
Yes. The unused energy (ie. energy that is not used to do work) is dispersed into the environment in various forms (sound, heat, radiation). If your question is how to convert heat radiation (infra-red) into heat, you just absorb it with something. Infra red does not have much penetrating power.

The energy loss due to radiation is:

[tex]E = \sigma T^4[/tex]

where [itex]\sigma = 5.67051 \times 10^{-8} W/m^2K^4[/itex]

So if the temperature (eg steam) is in the order of 400K, you are looking at a maximum of 1.5 kilowatts/m^2 of radiation loss, or about 2 horsepower.

AM
 
Andrew Mason said:
Yes. The unused energy (ie. energy that is not used to do work) is dispersed into the environment in various forms (sound, heat, radiation). If your question is how to convert heat radiation (infra-red) into heat, you just absorb it with something. Infra red does not have much penetrating power.

The energy loss due to radiation is:

[tex]E = \sigma T^4[/tex]

where [itex]\sigma = 5.67051 \times 10^{-8} W/m^2K^4[/itex]

So if the temperature (eg steam) is in the order of 400K, you are looking at a maximum of 1.5 kilowatts/m^2 of radiation loss, or about 2 horsepower.

AM

A compressor can be assumed as an adiabatic machine. There are no losses by radiation nor heat conduction to the environment. But the compressor communicates an irreversibility to the flow. That's another loose we haven't mentioned: the proper increasing of entropy of the flow through a turbomachine or heat engine.
 
In basically any machine that is not 100% efficient, the only "place" the lost energy (due to the inefficiency) can go is into its surroundings as heat energy, or radiation, correct?
Just a thought here that goes along with your other post. If that "machine" is a compressor (or pump or expander), the energy could also go into your working fluid. I suppose one could also say that eventually it will go into the environment, but for the purposes of engineering, the energy going into the working fluid due to a machine not being 100% efficient is an important consideration.
 
So basically there's only sound, heat, and infrared to take into consideration?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K